Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Tornado-Cat said:

We agree on that, and they could also, theoretically, waive their rights for the other competitors as they already did before.

Yeah right. They got screwed over once before because they were naive. They wont do it a second time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we need to go back to the pre-multi challenger days and just have one-on-one mutual consent DoG matches like it was until 1967, then we could have an AC every 9 months.

 

Problem solved.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

Giant Ego verse Giant Ego, like it used to be.

But every 4-9 years more likely.

Mmmm there are more giant Egos around these days, but maybe not sailing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, sclarke said:

Yeah right. They got screwed over once before because they were naive. They wont do it a second time.

You’re right. They’re smart enough not to trust Grumpy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Monkey said:

You’re right. They’re smart enough not to trust Grumpy. 

Yep, cos they didn't trust them in Bermuda right? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

With announcements running ahead of schedule we could see the AC75 one even sooner than Saturday.

Yay! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gtran of http://m.ilsecoloxix.it/p/magazine/2018/03/28/ACPIdlTC-america_monoscafo_regole.shtml

Four months of work The Ac75 Class Rule was launched by Defender Team New Zealand with the Challenger of record, the representative of the challengers, namely Luna Rossa. It took four months of work to work out the details of the flying monohull. Which rests on two main concepts: innovation and cost containment. Let's see the highlights: - Strict limitations on the number of components that can be built, including hulls, masts, rims, foils and sails, while retaining ample room for development for team designers to encourage research. - One design elements such as the aluminum foils arm and the cant adjustment system (stern-bow movement) of the dinghies, the mast and the rigging Then there is the detail of the "soft wing" no longer rigid (double soft mainsail) that should make navigation less exasperated, even if we talk about the "fastest monohulls ever". We will see them in the water on March 31, 2019, the date on which they can be launched.

The defender Grant Dalton, the CEO of Emirates Team New Zealand: "We worked on a Class Rule that was a compromise between cost maintenance and technological development. The America's Cup has the task of driving innovation in the sailing sector and I think the AC75 goes in this direction. The new concept of mainsail (soft wing) is an example, because we think that over time will find extensive applications in recreational boating " Matteo de Nora, Emirates Team Team New Zealand's Principal Team: "In less than a year since the victory in Bermuda, they have been handed over to the challengers: the Protocol, the Class Rule and the definitive seat of the America's Cup. I want to thank Max Sirena for Luna Rossa, Challenger of Record, Grant Dalton and the entire team for respecting the stated deadlines. Welcome to the New York Yacht Club and to American Magic. Today the 36th America's Cup has begun. " And already, because in the meantime the agreement has been signed that has established that Auckland will be the seat of the 36th America's Cup with a project of the bases of the final teams. And the New York Yacht Club officially launched its star and stripe challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Xlot said:

  ^ Aluminum foil arms ??

Finest kind

Furnished by Graeme Hart, NZ's richest man and principal of Reynolds Group Holdings, makers of Reynolds Aluminum Wrap!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KiwiJoker said:

Finest kind

Furnished by Graeme Hart, NZ's richest man and principal of Reynolds Group Holdings, makers of Reynolds Aluminum Wrap!

they could sponsor @random with tinfoil hats!

match made in heaven hahaha

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a few things to read straight off the bat

Highlights of the AC75 Class Rule include:

  • Strict limitations on the number of components that can be built including hulls, masts, rudders, foils, and sails, thus encouraging teams to do more R&D in simulation and subsequently less physical construction and testing
  • Supplied foil arms and cant system to save design time and construction costs
  • Supplied rigging
  • One design mast tube

 

edit: also this

image.png.78bb91e01eb67a3bb1b1e38d407010ab.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The numbers allowed for some components, like foil arms, are not enough, IMO.  4 foil arms?  Should be allowed enough for two boats and a spare pair.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WetHog said:

The numbers allowed for some components, like foil arms, are not enough, IMO.  4 foil arms?  Should be allowed enough for two boats and a spare pair.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

they will be supplied, and probably over engineered as a result of that so they'll have a solid lifetime. as for the trailing edges, they can be replaced and modified, it's not like they will be the hardest thing to figure out with CFD modelling for the teams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, nav said:

Nice renderings but I still shake my head and think "why" when I see drawings of the JC75.  The boat just doesn't make sense to me.  I wonder if this boat would exist if LR didn't demand the next AC boat be a mono-hull in their "partnership" with ETNZ prior to AC35.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, inebriated said:

they will be supplied, and probably over engineered as a result of that so they'll have a solid lifetime. as for the trailing edges, they can be replaced and modified, it's not like they will be the hardest thing to figure out with CFD modelling for the teams

I understand they will be supplied but we are talking about components that will be required to support the weight and loads of a fully powered up/fully crewed 75 meter mono-hull during testing and competition over a full AC cycle.  I am no expert on boat design but it seems reasonable that a spare pair would be allowed considering the unknowns involved with these very important components.  Maybe the  most important components of a JC75.

WetHog  :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reads well so far.

Relatively few OD components, although rig and sail design has limits placed on it. No practical limits on the foil or hull shape.

Computer control allowed for the foils but not the rig but foil control is powered by hamsters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rgeek said:

Reads well so far.

Relatively few OD components, although rig and sail design has limits placed on it. No practical limits on the foil or hull shape.

Computer control allowed for the foils but not the rig but foil control is powered by hamsters.

thankfully the hampsters are only driving the little flaps. probably work for just one person

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and lift the entire boat out of the water via the foils with no limit on how frequently that may be done (?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rgeek said:

and lift the entire boat out of the water via the foils with no limit on how frequently that may be done (?)

i'd say so, look at what four guys could do with the ac50. granted that they were much lighter, the flap size will be tiny compared to the 50, probably with lower speeds too,

get a guy like louis sinclare or luke parkinson on a pedestal and they could do it all day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, nav said:

Moving the whole rudders again - no flaps

is that with the batteries or grinders?

i think that it would take more than one for the rudder hahaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No requirement that vessel should right after knock down. Is 2000 kg at 4 m enough ballast to pick a 26.5m tall mast and sails out of the water?  Seems like the rig has weigh less than 500 kg of there is going to be a chance I don't know enough about rigs this big to tell.

SHC

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nav said:

Dan Bernasconi and Martin Fisher on the AC75 Class Rule

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iIsXphybVsr1vZZF44m7PCl4CT3OpcT6/view

 

 

 

Designed by committee it seems, so they've got themselves a camel. With more than a few humps.

Still, sailmakers are going to be rubbing their hands and figuring on their retirement fund on the developmental time needed for the mast/main configuration. 

But overall you just have to say why?  They've killed of all the possible avenues of sensible real down-the-line applications with the restrictions, made hard work for themselves for no good reasons, and costs will be right up there too.

Cloud cuckoo land IMHO.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Tropical Madness said:

" There shall be eleven crew members, unless reduced by accident, who shall all be human beings. "

Having a hard time wrapping my head around that clause.  Chimpanzees,  a pygmy horse, boa constrictor, some sort of robot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting too 


14.9 A foil flap may contact a foil wing, and in the absence of external forces, and at any cross-section and rotation angle, either may cause deformation in the other in a single zone covering not more than 20% of the local chord length. Outside this zone, neither may cause deformation in the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, axolotl said:

Having a hard time wrapping my head around that clause.  Chimpanzees,  a pygmy horse, boa constrictor, some sort of robot?

robots-jockey-par-K-Team-300x228.jpg.afe781294fd22914e519c44c82306b64.jpgjockey-robots-kamel-rennen-37722900.jpg.796f8b8fed1d546ac14d474bbc2ea1b4.jpgabu-dhabi-camel-racing-05_29475_600x450.jpg.0a527acd5ee7c910e723c878d6fa7e42.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, axolotl said:

Having a hard time wrapping my head around that clause.  Chimpanzees,  a pygmy horse, boa constrictor, some sort of robot?

Chimpanzee crew have been around for a while. They have great power to weight ratio and with their long arms there would be no temptation to use as 'cyclors'.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WetHog said:

The numbers allowed for some components, like foil arms, are not enough, IMO.  4 foil arms?  Should be allowed enough for two boats and a spare pair.  

WetHog  :ph34r:

No worries...the 4 foil arms are "supplied" so...

5.16 Components marked in Rule 5.1 as “Supplied” may be repaired to their original condition, but such repair
must be approved by the Measurement Committee. If a “Supplied” part is damaged beyond repair, as
demonstrated to the Measurement Committee, that part may be replaced by a new “Supplied” part.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about 7.8 hull mould / plug out of wood / 10% recycled carbon / similar shit?

 

And, the boat is indeed a 68 footer - the French were right

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Xlot said:

What about 7.8 hull mould / plug out of wood / 10% recycled carbon / similar shit?

Or basalt!?

Anyway good, do the right thing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stingray, wait until I find the sailing Orangutans... I've heard that you have to start them really young before they can rip your head off.

Image result for orangutan sailing

 

Here is the Kiwi coach in charge of the Orangutans.

Image result for orangutan sailing

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Self-tacking jib prohibited?

Spreaders present - mast D-section must be comparatively thin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Xlot said:

Self-tacking jib prohibited?

Spreaders present - mast D-section must be comparatively thin

ensure the class is relevant to the sport of sailing with connection to the community of sailors;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steve Clark said:

No requirement that vessel should right after knock down. Is 2000 kg at 4 m enough ballast to pick a 26.5m tall mast and sails out of the water?  Seems like the rig has weigh less than 500 kg of there is going to be a chance I don't know enough about rigs this big to tell.

SHC

10.2

When constrained to 90° of heel (such that MWP is held perpendicular to the free surface) and left free
to float to equilibrium in the other degrees of freedom:
(a) the centre of buoyancy of the hull surface shall be at least 0.830 m above MWP; and
(b) the angle between LCP and the flotation waterplane shall be no more than 5°.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Xlot said:

What about 7.8 hull mould / plug out of wood / 10% recycled carbon / similar shit?

 

And, the boat is indeed a 68 footer - the French were right

Min 22.76m including bowsprit ~ 75ft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, nav said:

Min 22.76m including bowsprit ~ 75ft

The bowsprit doesn't count - usually

 

Don't see foil arm material (aluminum??) mentioned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

26.1 Details of a FCS to control the cant rotation of the foils will be specified in accordance with Rule 33. This system will allow cant to be changed during manoeuvres and to make low-frequency cant setting changes, but the system will not be designed to provide high-frequency cant adjustment.

Question, what is considered low frequency, vs high frequency? Obviously 1,000 times/sec is less than 1,000,000...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Salted_not_stirred said:

26.1 Details of a FCS to control the cant rotation of the foils will be specified in accordance with Rule 33. This system will allow cant to be changed during manoeuvres and to make low-frequency cant setting changes, but the system will not be designed to provide high-frequency cant adjustment.

Question, what is considered low frequency, vs high frequency? Obviously 1,000 times/sec is less than 1,000,000...

May be in part about battery power-saving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Salted_not_stirred said:

26.1 Details of a FCS to control the cant rotation of the foils will be specified in accordance with Rule 33. This system will allow cant to be changed during manoeuvres and to make low-frequency cant setting changes, but the system will not be designed to provide high-frequency cant adjustment.

Question, what is considered low frequency, vs high frequency? Obviously 1,000 times/sec is less than 1,000,000...

That's just giving fair warning, not to go mad on the buttons and expect it to work

It doesn't matter exactly , because it will be designed in and the same for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They say its a rotating rig but the rig plan shows something different.  I'm i missing something?

image.thumb.png.62cc0007408c1e5a5f3cf81d11ee1e54.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are bow max beam restrictions that presumably prevent scow bows.

Min volume limit of 70M^3, 40M^3 in watertight sections.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, nav said:

That's just giving fair warning, not to go mad on the buttons and expect it too work

It doesn't matter exactly , because it will be designed in and the same for all.

Right, makes sense.

I'm wondering how much this rule will affect systems like the "Xbox controller" found on NZ's AC50? Was that considered high frequency?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20.7 Energy supplied by the crew to move control surfaces must primarily be transmitted through the crew’s

hands; any contact between other parts of the crew and force input devices must not transmit any signif-

23 minutes ago, Xlot said:

The bowsprit doesn't count - usually

 

Don't see foil arm material (aluminum??) mentioned

 

1st: Just getting things straight

(The overall length of the hull doesn't count either in the DOG for that matter, The AC 50 was not 50 feet either etc)

 

2nd: TBA 13.1 COR/D Further details of the foil arms.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, hoom said:

There are bow max beam restrictions that presumably prevent scow bows.

Min volume limit of 70M^3, 40M^3 in watertight sections.

 

Bummer. There goes my defense against big crashes off the foils

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, johnstarks said:

They say its a rotating rig but the rig plan shows something different.  I'm i missing something?

image.thumb.png.62cc0007408c1e5a5f3cf81d11ee1e54.png

We know it's mounted on a ball, so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 foil flaps: not really clear if that is during the entire dev process, or a quiver on hand.

Hope we don't go through the muddy waters of foil/flap dev like last cycle, ughhh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The V1 and D1 both look like they go to the same outboard chainplate. That normally stops rotation. Must be just a drawing mistake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, barfy said:

20 foil flaps: not really clear if that is during the entire dev process, or a quiver on hand.

Hope we don't go through the muddy waters of foil/flap dev like last cycle, ughhh.

It's much the same process as last time. Within 24 hours of it first being installed (on either boat) each restricted item must be notified to the MC and will count against the various totals. (in differing amount of detail, depending on the part/structure)

Lets hope the rules are less fungible this time - they do appear more clearly thought out and written, while following much the same pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30.5 If requested, or required by a measurement procedure, Competitors shall provide the Measurement Com-
mittee with source code and/or compiled executables of any software installed on the yacht, and shall assist them in the understanding of such code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, nav said:

Bummer. There goes my defense against big crashes off the foils

Was thinking the opposite, actually: pseudo-wave piercing bow to avoid slowing down in a wave / face plant. Will have to check impact of min.volumes

Ref. crew not allowed before foils pls?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Yes, I saw the measure in of parts and database rule, just didn't connect it to the flaps.

^ Once bitten, twice shy. The ECC is well spec'd, and everywhere precludes any yacht state information. No more magic carpet indicator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Xlot said:

 

Ref. crew not allowed before foils pls?

That is not exactly what I said! :lol:

anyway.....

27.8 Crew shall remain entirely aft of a plane 9.0 m forward of TRP except briefly to cross the boat, handle sails
or resolve unforeseen issues.
27.9 Any crew that go forward of a plane 11.0 m forward of TRP may only do so as permitted by Rule 27.8, and
must be tethered to the hull by a harness and safety line that complies with ISO 12401, the safety line
being no longer than 2 m.
27.10 No part of the crew shall be in a sustained position outside an extrusion of the perimeter line perpendicular
to MWP.

 

and while I'm at it..

 

28.3 The guest racer shall remain entirely behind a line 2.0 m forward of TRP.
28.4 The Regatta Director may require the guest racer to be tethered to the yacht.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I really shouldn't be monkeying around on this thread with my irreverent simian posts but this rule has shown how even accomplished sailors can get turned 'Every Way but Lose'. 

    Here is what Clyde thinks about the newly announced rule.

Image result for clint eastwood orangutan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, nav said:

 

(The overall length of the hull doesn't count either in the DOG for that matter, The AC 50 was not 50 feet either etc)
 

Bzzzt, DSQ.

 The competing yachts or vessels, if of one mast, shall be not less than sixty-five forty-four feet nor more than ninety feet on the load water line; if of more than one mast, they shall be not less than eighty feet nor more than one hundred and fifteen feet on the load water line.

And the AC50 was > 49’ LWL, while the JC69 is > 68’. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

Bzzzt, DSQ.

 The competing yachts or vessels, if of one mast, shall be not less than sixty-five forty-four feet nor more than ninety feet on the load water line; if of more than one mast, they shall be not less than eighty feet nor more than one hundred and fifteen feet on the load water line.

And the AC50 was > 49’ LWL, while the JC69 is > 68’. 

You confirmed exactly what I said. And got yourself in a muddle at the same time

As most know it's LWL in the DOG, not OA hull length - but it's not waterline that is being measured and that you are quoting for the AC49'/50'/15m and nor is it for the current AC68'/75' (which is again designated in metric units, despite it's class 'name',  as was the AC Class in AC35).

They will be close to the same thing - but this is a rule thread, so let's stick to them eh ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, nav said:

You confirmed exactly what I said. And got yourself in a muddle at the same time

It's LWL in the DOG, not hull length - which is what you are quoting for the AC49'/50'/15m and the current AC68'/75' (which is again designated in metric units, despite it's class 'name',  as was the AC Class in AC35, )

Oops, yes you said overall, LOA. But since the DOG refers to WL, this boat is not named appropriately DOG-wise.

You were on a crusade to belittle the AC50 as an AC49 despite it being just over 49’ on the waterline. For the maintenance of any integrity a subsequently losing crusade to label this as a JC69 would appropriate... 

By this measure the AC72’s would have been named AC82’s (including bow sprit) and the AC50’s named AC58’s (?).  Those official Class names were the more Deed-legit. The more ‘classic’ and the more honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, nav said:

That is not exactly what I said! :lol:

anyway.....

27.8 Crew shall remain entirely aft of a plane 9.0 m forward of TRP except briefly to cross the boat, handle sails
or resolve unforeseen issues.
27.9 Any crew that go forward of a plane 11.0 m forward of TRP may only do so as permitted by Rule 27.8, and
must be tethered to the hull by a harness and safety line that complies with ISO 12401, the safety line
being no longer than 2 m.
27.10 No part of the crew shall be in a sustained position outside an extrusion of the perimeter line perpendicular
to MWP.

 

and while I'm at it..

 

28.3 The guest racer shall remain entirely behind a line 2.0 m forward of TRP.
28.4 The Regatta Director may require the guest racer to be tethered to the yacht.

 

and another part of that picture...

11.12 Lines parallel to TRP, at least 50 mm wide and of a colour contrasting to the deck shall be marked across
the deck such that their aft edges are no more than:
(a) 2.00 m forward of TRP;
(b) 9.00 m forward of TRP; and
(c) 11.00 m forward of TRP.

 

.....lines more accurately described than the zones they delineate :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering if the boat was originally a 75 ft,  reduced as a 68 ft for cost and safety reasons,  basically doing like competitors did during last AC, going from 62 (real length) down to 50 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

I am wondering if the boat was originally a 75 ft  reduced as a 68 ft for cost and safety reasons,  basically doing like competitors did at last AC, going from 62 (real length) down to 50 :)

The French guys figured out the 68 months ago, even from just the concept video. So it very likely hasn’t changed. Yet.

COR/D can change anything they want until June 29, all by themselves.  They could make a 62’ LWL with a 13’ bow sprit and still call it a JC75. They could even plan to do any number of changes, and then suddenly spring it on everyone else at the last minute. But they won’t, for the AC-historic hell they’d take to whatever reputation they still have, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^  oh oh, let me grab my tinfoil hat

......and you wanna talk reputations! Seriously? YCMTSU :lol:

 

47 minutes ago, Stingray~ said:

Oops, yes you said overall, LOA. But since the DOG refers to WL, this boat is not named appropriately DOG-wise.

You were on a crusade to belittle the AC50 as an AC49 despite it being just over 49’ on the waterline
. For the maintenance of any integrity a subsequently losing crusade to label this as a JC69 would appropriate... 

By this measure the AC72’s would have been named AC82’s (including bow sprit) and the AC50’s named AC58’s (?).  Those official Class names were the more Deed-legit.

It's an MC boat - so as long as it falls somewhere within the range laid down in the DOG (44-90ft LWL- for a single mast) you can measure and name it how you like

The last AC had no size designator in the Class Rule, well it did in the first IIRC - 62, but they didn't want to make that mistake again so left it out completely for their 'new' rule.

The hulls were 15m long OA, not 49’ on the waterline

I agree with you about the bowsprits, being included/not included

If you insist on an accurate name for this one based on the class rule and the length of the hulls then it will have to be the AC20.600 - 20.700m  ..:D... a bit clumsy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, nav said:

I agree with you about the bowsprits, being included/not included

If you insist on an accurate name for this one based on the rule and the length of the hulls it will have to be AC20.600 - 20.700m        a bit clumsy! :D

Agreed, but: Either extent is a touch over 68’ and a short of 69’ right? Too lazy, on a phone.

Anyway, no biggy except for having fun poking you in the ribs for the AC49-belittling crusade you were on. You Koolaid drinker, you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Tornado-Cat said:

BTW, do we have the width between the two lizard feet ?

Max width between the middle toes of each foot when toes are extended? Yes, the max is in there, the amount you can curl them too.

Strangely, you also are allowed two separate foil feet on each side of the end of your foil arms. The boat will be ‘wild.’ Weird to have your support feet at the end of your arms; it’s pretty dang innovative. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the big challenges is how to specify a rule for a type of boat that has never be tried before. There's no hard data on which to base a rule.

The workaround in the AC75 rule is make key components "supplied" and to say that the details will be given at a future date that is yet TBA (see rule 33). Note that none of the dates in the table in rule 33 have been announced - they are all missing.

This 'kicks the can down the road', but eventually these components need to be (1) specified in detail, (2) they need to be supplied , and (3) they need to work.

The problem is (3) - they need to work - there's no way to know whether this will ever happen or not.

I would hate to be a designer working on an AC75. There's going to be a huge amount of guesswork that leads to disastrous mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stingray~ said:

whatever reputation they still have, lol.

They've got a big one, and they've got all of it! :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me the boat’s structure will be heavily designed around the supplied foil canter, where a great deal of the force is. A little like how the wings of a commercial jet airplane determine a lot else about how that jet gets designed, built and balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites